The Trial Of Socrates Justice System

Living in a democracy, everyone is exposed through television and other various forms of media everyday to numerous trials by jury. Usually they are rarely given a second thought, but every once in a while along comes a specific trial which captures the attention of the entire country. This goes the same for trials throughout centuries in our past. Although they did not have the same forms of media as in this, modern era, there were still specific trials in which everyone knew about. One trial that stands out is the one against the great philosopher Socrates. Accused of corrupting the youth, being an atheist, and believing in other gods, Socrates faced trial by jury. The early forms of democracy

Socrates, in his conviction from the Athenian jury, was both innocent and guilty as charged. In Plato’s Five Dialogues, accounts of events ranging from just prior to Socrates’ entry into the courthouse up until his mouthful of hemlock, both points are represented. Socrates’ in dealing with moral law was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of by Meletus. Socrates was only guilty as charged because his peers had concluded him as such. The laws didn’t find Socrates guilty; Socrates was guilty because his jurors enforced the laws. The law couldn’t enforce itself. Socrates was accused of corrupting Athens’ youth, not believing in the gods of the city and creating his own gods. In the Euthyphro, Socrates defends himself against the

In the trial of Socrates, I juror number 307, Ryan Callahan vote the defendant is Not Guilty on the first charge of Corrupting the youth. My justifications for this vote are as follows. Socrates didn 't corrupt the youth, he just shared his ideas with them and they in turn chose the path to take these ideas. Part of understanding this case is understand the time in which the case was held. This time being 399 B.C., a time in which Athens was a free democratic city, a town which prided itself at the time on the fact that its citizens had much freedom, particularly freedom of speech. Socrates believed that only people who were educated should rule the people, which meant that people were not capable of government participation

More importantly, Socrates’s relationship to the state is made clear during the dialogue with his friend Crito, when speaking as if Socrates is the state himself. When asking how important the state is, the law asks; “Is your…country to be honored more than…all your ancestors…that it counts for more among the gods and sensible men, that you must worship it…?” Rather than a statement, Socrates makes his point that the law must be upheld, even in his case of a death sentence. It is important to note that Socrates accepted his fate, even though he felt the accusations against him were false. Yet, as if speaking on behalf of the law, recognized that escaping would only turn those untruthful indictments into the truth, and as a destroyer of laws; “You will strengthen the conviction of the jury that they passed the right sentence on you.” By the definition of the word martyr, as one who dies for a cause, in this instance the laws of the state,

To introduce, Socrates was placed on trial and charged with the crime of impiety. Impiety is the lack of reverence for the gods and other sacred things. As well another major claim was that Socrates was corrupting the children of Athens. He also was believed to be an atheist, even though Socrates claimed to have a strong belief in the gods; he even believed “The god has commanded me to examine men, in oracles and in dreams and in

Socrates has shown he has no fear in being accused of crimes he knows he didn’t do. He gives explanation by saying that if you are accused of mothing you didn’t do they accusers will be the ones in pain from the loss and wrong doing. He goes about explaining how he has never charged or tried to seek material good for his teachings, he only wanted to help people through their own wisdom. While in court they go through all of his accusations and Socrates has no struggle disproving his guilt and proving them wrong. He explains that the accusers offer no witnesses to the charge and even if they charged him he could not pay for it because he is poor (28). Socrates is a selfless man as seem through his actions that is only trying to prove his knowledge through wisdom and teachings. While in court Socrates was accused of not believing in the Gods of Athens. He goes on to explain that he does believe in the gods, he states that one cannot teach spiritual things without believing in the Gods themselves and cherishing their worth. He backs this up with the statement that

Socrates was brought into the courts under charges of impiety and corruption of minors. Socrates did not believe in the divinities of the city-state. The punishment decided upon was an execution, in the hope that Socrates would choose exile, a punishment that would have satisfied the jury.

The Innocence of Socrates Socrates, an Athenian philosopher, is being accused of corrupting youth, disrespecting the gods, and undermining democracy. One might ask, ‘Why these charges?’ but Socrates is not guilty. Why would a full time philosopher who only asks questions have these accusations? Socrates is a very wise man and he does not deserve the charges that he is being accused of.

Socrates was accused of being a sophist because he was "engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens, of making the weaker argument appear the stronger," and "teaching others these same things." (Apology, Plato, Philosophic Classics page 21) Socrates is also accused of denying the existence of the gods, and corrupting the youth. Socrates goes about trying to prove his innocence. The jury that Socrates was tried by was made up of 501 Athenian citizens of all classes of society. While he fails to convince the Athenian jury of his innocence, he does a wonderful job in this effort. I personally believe that Socrates is innocent, and that the Athenian jury made the wrong decision.

Socrates was a moral philosopher who was accused of impiety and was about to be tried for a crime, the nature of which no one seemed to understand. The trial and death of Socrates has four dialogs known as the Euthyphro, the Apology, the Crito, and the Phaedo which describes the process of Socrates’ controversial and insightful trial that raises the questions about human morality. Within the story we learned that the relationship between morality and religion might not be as clear-cut as some might think, Socrates forces the witnesses of his trial as well as ourselves to come to conclusions which result in a paradox that conflicts with the individual beliefs of his audience. In the event in which, Socrates poses a question to himself and Euthyphro, an attempt to answer the question "What is piety?" It has a specific tie to the events in “The Trial and Death of Socrates”, for Socrates had been accused of impiety and was about to be tried for the crime of heresy. The Euthyphro dialogue was written twenty-four centuries ago, and its conclusion is devastating for the whole idea that holiness and morality are very well connected. The idea that, “if God does not make something good by commanding it, but rather instead identifies that which is good, what measurement of morality does he use to make this judgment?” If something is right because god commands it, then it follows that something would be just as right if God instructed differently. If god declares that it is right to

Ancient Athens was the site of a growing culture. Philosophy was among the many improvements and discoveries being made. With these improvements and discoveries, great thinkers were able to stretch out their knowledge to new heights. The society they lived in, both welcomed and shunned their ideals. Socrates was one of these thinkers. It was because of Socrates open-mindedness that he was sentenced to death by two charges brought against him. One, Socrates corrupted the youth and two, Socrates believed in ‘false gods’. Yet, was Socrates guilty or not?

One relevant argument Socrates makes quite well is the fact that those bringing charges against him clearly dislike his character and actions. Socrates openly dissenting with political figureheads such as Meletus and Anytus which spurred their disdain for him. He uses this as a ploy to help his jury find him innocent. Though he is correct in asserting the charges against him are brought because his enemies want to see him dealt with, he is not correct in assuming they are inherently wrong in

In most circumstances ending the life of a criminal as their punishment usually reflects the magnitude of the crimes that they committed, crimes that often involve the deaths of others or equally heinous actions, yet one historical example stands out for not following this rule. In 399 BC, in Athens, Greece, two men put a meek philosopher named Socrates on trial for two crimes he purportedly committed: not following state gods and corrupting the youth. These charges alleged against Socrates reflected the general sentiment of Athenians regarding Socrates; namely that he was an atheistic charlatan. The jury found Socrates guilty of these crimes and executed, a punishment that does not logically befit the supposed crimes that he committed. No sane or logical jury would find him guilty of such vague claims, especially in such a vehemently democratic polis as Athens, and they would never have executed Socrates for such meager offenses, nonetheless he was. Execution was especially unnecessary because Socrates himself was on the verge of death; he was in his seventies in the Greek era, so he was bound to die soon anyways. The central focus, then, is of understanding how on Earth the birthplace of democracy could have gone so awry and when they tried, convicted, and executed Socrates. Athens sentenced Socrates to death because his beliefs were against the flow of the changing Athenian ideological landscape, people regarded him as a pompous, elitist charlatan who impugned their core

By stating that it shouldn’t be important that he believed in other gods, Socrates is offending one of the most important values of the city, the gods the city believed in. Socrates goes on to tell the judges that even if they set him free on the terms he will stop philosophizing, he will not do so (Lines 29d). He says he will always obey the gods and not them. At that point, the jury probably understood that the only way to stop Socrates was to judge him as guilty. Socrates then tells the jury that killing him would harm them (Lines 30c- 31a). The jury probably saw this as a threating statement. Socrates goes on to say that there is nobody else like him and that if the prosecute him they will “spend the rest of your lives asleep”. The jury was probably scared that Socrates compared their life without him, as death. Finally, Socrates claims that all who learned from him listened because it was “not unpleasant” (Lines 33a-33b). By using a double negative, Socrates is trying to conceal the fact that he is saying listening to him is pleasant. Earlier Socrates said he would not try to trick the judges with his words, using basic language and being truthful throughout. The jury probably recognized his deception in this line and therefore he lost any trust he might have earned before the judgment.

The topic of justice is constantly debated by the philosopher Socrates. Though he had many different discussions with many different people throughout his life, Socrates was never able to decide what he believed justice was. In one particular discussion with two of his comrades, Glaucon and Adeimantus , Socrates realized that studying an individual wouldn’t help him learn the true meaning of justice. If he really wanted to understand justice, it might be easier to try to observe it in a large group rather than a single person. By observing what justice was in a community, there was a possibility that finding a justice in a single person would become much easier.